Living Faithfully Between Nation and Kingdom

For Christians who live in a democratic republic, these questions do not remain far away. We pay taxes, have the opportunity to vote, and must often respond to public actions and events. This Commentary is not about any particular policy, event, or public official. It is a biblical and theological discussion of one of the hardest questions Christians face today. The tension arises because the Christian lives both as a citizen of the nation-state and as a citizen of the Kingdom of God. So the first question is this: what biblical authority does the state actually have?

Scripture makes clear that the state is legitimate and necessary. It administers justice, preserves order, and should act for the public good. Yet, as Christ reminded Pilate, its authority is limited to what God has granted it. The state’s role is not redemptive. It cannot claim what belongs to God, nor is its mission the same as that of the church or of Christians. The Christian belongs first to the Kingdom of God. If the state has limits, then Christian participation in its work must also have limits.

Scripture also makes some of those limits clear. It is not the Christian’s task to exact justice. That belongs to the nation-state, while final justice belongs to God. Christians can and should participate in public life. Daniel and the other Jews in exile show this. We may vote, speak, persuade, serve, and work for the public good. Yet the real difficulty comes when a Christian confronts what he sees as a grave moral wrong in public life. How should Christians have thought and acted about slavery in Roman times, or abortion in our own day? Here conscience, neighbor-love, and public responsibility all press at once. So three questions arise: How should a Christian address such wrongs? How can he act without confusing civic action with his calling in the Kingdom of God? And how can he avoid the false idea that the nation-state’s mission is to create the Kingdom of God on earth?

Christians may use lawful means such as voting, persuasion, advocacy, public argument, legal process, and public service. However, they must do so in a manner consistent with Christian character and love. Strident and angry retorts will not do. Nor may they act as though civic action were the mission of the church. The nation-state and the church not only have different missions, but also use different means. The state works through law, judgment, and coercive authority. The church bears witness through the proclamation of the gospel, holy living, service, and love. Therefore, the Christian must ask whether any personal advocacy is fitting for one whose first allegiance is to Christ. Paul provides a biblical example. He made lawful use of the Roman system in defending himself and preserving opportunities for witness, and the gospel reached even some of Caesar’s household.

The most difficult cases are not those in which the line is obvious. They arise when the means of the nation-state, or the implications of those means, seem to conflict with Christian principles. Is there a framework that can help Christians proceed with wisdom and discretion? I believe there is. It must begin with prayer. Then the Christian should move through the questions in order. First, define the issue clearly: What is being proposed, required, defended, or opposed? What good is being claimed? Second, test the state’s role: Is the action being taken, or proposed, within the mission of the nation-state as Scripture defines it? Is there a direct biblical command that governs the case? Is the concern the goal, the means, or both?

The decisive question is not only whether the state’s goal is just and within its proper mission, but whether the Christian’s response will be faithful to Christ. Third, then, the Christian must test his own response: Does my response fit the Christian mission itself? Will it confuse the Kingdom of God with the nation-state? Will it tempt me to use non-Christian methods that are wrong in themselves and that would tarnish both the church and my witness? Fourth, he must count the moral cost: What are the consequences of compliance, noncompliance, or resistance? What happens to conscience, truthfulness, humility, and love in the action taken? Different Christians may not always reach the same conclusion when answering such questions. The result may be support, qualified support, refusal, protest, lawful appeal, or patient endurance. Even so, their judgments and actions should be grounded in a biblical foundation rather than in any secular ideology or advocacy group. No matter how one decides these issues, while living as a citizen of the nation-state, one’s deepest loyalty must always remain with the Kingdom of God.